XL1s or dvx100 ? best film look ? - 'Q' for real film heads
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
28 Days later
By the way, 28 days later was shot with XL-1S equipped with P+S 35mm adapter and cine lenses. Maybe that affects the look a little ;)
-
Nigel
- Senior member
- Posts: 2775
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 10:14 am
- Real name: Adam
- Location: Lost
- Contact:
I will tend to agree with the overall feeling of the Panasonic DVX100. I have seen some stuff off of it and it looks good. The problem with any Prosumer camera is the Lens--Until you can get a solid fully manual Cine style lens on a DV camera for 5000USD or less(Which will never happen) I am staying away.
For Now
Good Luck
For Now
Good Luck
-
mattias
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
- Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
you need to look up the meaning of i-frame mpeg. it's used for origination and editing all the time. it contains only i-frames so it doesn't suffer from any of the problems the dvd kind of mpeg does.nonkjo wrote:to edit, add titles and effects, color correct....rerender...I'm very hesitant to say that this si the way to go.
/matt
I understand that using I frames only eliminates temporal redundancy issues normally associated with mpeg utilizing IPB frame encoding (like dvd's use) but it doesn't change the fact that mpeg is still a lossy compresion format. Hey, i'm not an elitist working exclusively with high end uncompressed either but i do know that if I'm going to toil over a product, i want it to come out the best i can get it...you need to look up the meaning of i-frame mpeg. it's used for origination and editing all the time. it contains only i-frames so it doesn't suffer from any of the problems the dvd kind of mpeg does.
It's not super expensive to work with uncompressed SD these days and I'm not so overwhelmed with footage that i need to use this type of format to save space (which is really what this is all about anyway...that's why we're talking about compresion after all).
Like i said, something like this is going to be a great thing for broadcasting where they'll need to store lots of footage, cut it when needed and be able to call up clips from a video server for broadcast purposes...But my interest is not in the broadcast segment. I want to make films. And if i'm going to make that kind of investment in time and money, it's worth it to go the extra mile and make sure the image quality will be the best i can get...
James Green
Digital is digital. Film is film. How hard is it to understand. Buy whatvere cheap digital camcorder if your going to take test shots with it. No matter what digi camera you buy it will NEVER be film, you will only belive it looks a bit like film because of what you have read about it from the producers and are so wanting to belive yourself. Either way, you will be finding yourself sitting in your chair when the day is over coloradjusting and putting on film-look filters to try to make it look even more like film. I dont see the point.
3Chip camera are ok and producde a good image, but whatvere you do with them like filming at 24fps or in progressive mode it will never come out really good because they are soooo much smaller then what you will find in real filmcameras. Either way, im talking crazy, i just think this desperat thing trying to get digital images to look like film and go out buying these new cameras are stupid. Maybe im a little soft on the spot that film should forever stay like it is and have done since the early 1900!
3Chip camera are ok and producde a good image, but whatvere you do with them like filming at 24fps or in progressive mode it will never come out really good because they are soooo much smaller then what you will find in real filmcameras. Either way, im talking crazy, i just think this desperat thing trying to get digital images to look like film and go out buying these new cameras are stupid. Maybe im a little soft on the spot that film should forever stay like it is and have done since the early 1900!
I have a Beaulieu 4008 ZMII, just to establish my credentials, but I have a production company and use the XL1s for broadcast and corporate, and have practical experience of all the cameras you speak of here.
I have to say there is some wild misinformation going on:
"I gotta say, the single chip Panasonics looked much sharper than the Canon XL1; better color, better contrast, just better all around"
I find this very difficult to believe. In the first place 3 chips per se yields better saturated colour resolution and the XL1/XL1s are amongst the best in that regard for 1/3" chip camcorders. The shooter must have been doing something wrong with the Canon. My wife has a megapixel Sony TRV33 with native 16:9 that looks very sharp and colourful until you put it against the Canon.
"28 days Later" and "Full Frontal" were both shot with PAL Canons - the former a straight XL1 with Arriflex PL adaptor and 35mm lenses, in frame mode; the latter an XL1s interlaced - both were cropped for 1:85 loosing 25% resolution.
PAL frame mode is a faux progressive scan at 25p which yields roughly 75% of the true prog scan of the DVX100 PAL camera - but is not far of the DVX100 NTSC 24p resolution, because PAL has 100 more scan lines than NTSC. PAL 25p is almost indistinguishable from 24p and both are very easy to print to film frame for frame (so is deinterlaced 50i - 60i needs pulldown extrapolation). With PAL you print frame for frame and need to speed up the sound by 4.1% for it to play properly at 24fps.
I use the Panasonic 16:9 anamorphic adaptor on the Canon (same 72mm filter thread as the DVX100) and the quality is extremely good - I would put it against the NTSC DVX100 anyday (the PAL DVX100 @ 25p with the adaptor will be better of course).
If you know what you're doing and shoot properly then the Canon XL1s has fantastic quality and none of my broadcast clients have ever even commented that they think it is DV or that the resolution looks poor.
Many people are using the Canon with adaptors and high quality 35mm still or even cine lenses like Cooke and Zeiss and have found that the resolution limit is in the standard lens not the chips. Canon make and sell a completely manual 16x lens for the XL1/s that is extremely good - I have also the 3x wide angle which is very good also.
The DVX100 is a superb camcorder but the deal with interchangeable lenses is that you can use high quality manual lenses as opposed the the electronic internal focusing ones like the 16x one that comes with the XL1s or the fixed one on the DVX100 - you cannot pull focus reliably with these electronic lenses.
Furthermore the DVX100 has a wide-end limited zoom range (4.5-45mm), that would require you putting on resolution sapping telephot adaptors - with the 1.6x coupling between the 16x lens and Canon body I can shoot a pin sharp close up of the moon with the XL1s, or use a 35mm still adaptor to use still lens at an incredible 7.2x magnification (1/3" chips are close to Super 8 frame size) - for this reason they are very popular with wildlife filmakers.
Both camcorders are excellent but DPs who light DV features will usually choose a camera with interchangeable lenses over a fixed one - just like it works in film.
Sorry for the long post, don't frett I love my Beaulieu - use it regularly and will never part with it - try doing 70fps in video - but I just thought this may be of some helps to the original poster.
Cheers.
I have to say there is some wild misinformation going on:
"I gotta say, the single chip Panasonics looked much sharper than the Canon XL1; better color, better contrast, just better all around"
I find this very difficult to believe. In the first place 3 chips per se yields better saturated colour resolution and the XL1/XL1s are amongst the best in that regard for 1/3" chip camcorders. The shooter must have been doing something wrong with the Canon. My wife has a megapixel Sony TRV33 with native 16:9 that looks very sharp and colourful until you put it against the Canon.
"28 days Later" and "Full Frontal" were both shot with PAL Canons - the former a straight XL1 with Arriflex PL adaptor and 35mm lenses, in frame mode; the latter an XL1s interlaced - both were cropped for 1:85 loosing 25% resolution.
PAL frame mode is a faux progressive scan at 25p which yields roughly 75% of the true prog scan of the DVX100 PAL camera - but is not far of the DVX100 NTSC 24p resolution, because PAL has 100 more scan lines than NTSC. PAL 25p is almost indistinguishable from 24p and both are very easy to print to film frame for frame (so is deinterlaced 50i - 60i needs pulldown extrapolation). With PAL you print frame for frame and need to speed up the sound by 4.1% for it to play properly at 24fps.
I use the Panasonic 16:9 anamorphic adaptor on the Canon (same 72mm filter thread as the DVX100) and the quality is extremely good - I would put it against the NTSC DVX100 anyday (the PAL DVX100 @ 25p with the adaptor will be better of course).
If you know what you're doing and shoot properly then the Canon XL1s has fantastic quality and none of my broadcast clients have ever even commented that they think it is DV or that the resolution looks poor.
Many people are using the Canon with adaptors and high quality 35mm still or even cine lenses like Cooke and Zeiss and have found that the resolution limit is in the standard lens not the chips. Canon make and sell a completely manual 16x lens for the XL1/s that is extremely good - I have also the 3x wide angle which is very good also.
The DVX100 is a superb camcorder but the deal with interchangeable lenses is that you can use high quality manual lenses as opposed the the electronic internal focusing ones like the 16x one that comes with the XL1s or the fixed one on the DVX100 - you cannot pull focus reliably with these electronic lenses.
Furthermore the DVX100 has a wide-end limited zoom range (4.5-45mm), that would require you putting on resolution sapping telephot adaptors - with the 1.6x coupling between the 16x lens and Canon body I can shoot a pin sharp close up of the moon with the XL1s, or use a 35mm still adaptor to use still lens at an incredible 7.2x magnification (1/3" chips are close to Super 8 frame size) - for this reason they are very popular with wildlife filmakers.
Both camcorders are excellent but DPs who light DV features will usually choose a camera with interchangeable lenses over a fixed one - just like it works in film.
Sorry for the long post, don't frett I love my Beaulieu - use it regularly and will never part with it - try doing 70fps in video - but I just thought this may be of some helps to the original poster.
Cheers.
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
Previously, I had written:
"I gotta say, the single chip Panasonics looked much sharper than the Canon XL1; better color, better contrast, just better all around"
This softness was notorious. Everyone on the freakin earth complained about it and Canon made changes in later models and the new Canon XL1s is vastly improved over the very first Canon XL1. Just go onto any newsgroup archives and look at all the bitching that went on about the original Canon XL1 cameras.
My point is that making a general statement that any 3 chip camera will provide a superior image to a single chip camera is a myth. There are plenty of examples where modern single chip cameras put out a more pleasing picture than an older 3 chip camera and the example I gave is one scenario that I witnessed personally.
Do I prefer three chip cameras? Yes. Would I use an original XL1 for a production of my own? Not even if it was free.
"I gotta say, the single chip Panasonics looked much sharper than the Canon XL1; better color, better contrast, just better all around"
They are now but this was right after the XL1 was released and had the factory lens. It was a dog. Just notice how many of them show up on ebay and people can't give the damned things away. If the original XL1 was universally as good as the newer XL1s, then certainly buying a used older XL1 would be a bargain but everyone knows their junk.Jack wrote:I find this very difficult to believe. In the first place 3 chips per se yields better saturated colour resolution and the XL1/XL1s are amongst the best in that regard for 1/3" chip camcorders.
Well, as I was the shooter I can assure you there was no pilot error. The original Canon XL1 was a soft camera; much softer than the later model single chip Panasonics that were purchased to supplament the shoot.Jack wrote:The shooter must have been doing something wrong with the Canon.
This softness was notorious. Everyone on the freakin earth complained about it and Canon made changes in later models and the new Canon XL1s is vastly improved over the very first Canon XL1. Just go onto any newsgroup archives and look at all the bitching that went on about the original Canon XL1 cameras.
My point is that making a general statement that any 3 chip camera will provide a superior image to a single chip camera is a myth. There are plenty of examples where modern single chip cameras put out a more pleasing picture than an older 3 chip camera and the example I gave is one scenario that I witnessed personally.
Do I prefer three chip cameras? Yes. Would I use an original XL1 for a production of my own? Not even if it was free.
Hi MovieStuff,
I recognise you here as the maker of the wonderful WorkPrinters and I am sure there was no 'pilot error' as you are clearly a man who knows what he is doing - so sorry for casting any aspersions, I didn't realise you were the shooter.
You are right that there were problems with the original 16x auto lens on the XL1 (wouldn't hold focus), but the camera itself was good - "28 Days Later" was shot with an XL1 (PL adaptor 35 lenses), and although DV will never compare to 35mm, I am sure you will agree the images were very good considering they lost 25% rez by cropping.
The thing about single chip consumer camcorders is that they have excessive edge enhancement that can make them seem very sharp, but also tends to be the hallmark of the 'video look' - it is an artificial sharpness that evaporates on a resolution chart.
You are right to say that not all 3 chip cameras are good, but single chips use overlays and have to use several pixels to register a colour that would take only 1 pixel with 3 chips - this is why megapixel camcorders (1,000,000 plus pixels) can have lower resolution than a 3 chip camcorder with 300,000 to 450,000 pixels on each chip, and the amount of pixels is an oft misunderstood indicator of resolution - Sony 2/3" chip DigiBeta cameras only have 470,000 pixels per chip - about the same as the PAL 1/3" chip DVX100, but their rez is significantly higher than the prosumer Panasonic.
The Canon XL1s I can assure you is sharp and yes you are right an improvement over the original XL1 - I shoot sometimes on a 2/3" chip Sony DSR570 DVCAM camcorder, and I have cut the anamorphic XL1s footage with the Sony footage, and in good light it was not far off, and that was in frame mode!
Frame mode has taken some bashing since the true prog scan of the DVX100 arrived on the scene, and whilst undoubtedly real prog scan is better (sensational in the DVX100 for a 1/3" chip camera), it does look as close to film mode in 25p as would suit most people (having said that progscan/frame never looks exactly like film - nice but it is not film), and as long as you shoot real 16:9 - not electronic - then resolution is very good.
I use Super 8 for titles and special FX at work and anything for a hobby - and nothing can beat the look of real film - never will!
Cheers.
I recognise you here as the maker of the wonderful WorkPrinters and I am sure there was no 'pilot error' as you are clearly a man who knows what he is doing - so sorry for casting any aspersions, I didn't realise you were the shooter.
You are right that there were problems with the original 16x auto lens on the XL1 (wouldn't hold focus), but the camera itself was good - "28 Days Later" was shot with an XL1 (PL adaptor 35 lenses), and although DV will never compare to 35mm, I am sure you will agree the images were very good considering they lost 25% rez by cropping.
The thing about single chip consumer camcorders is that they have excessive edge enhancement that can make them seem very sharp, but also tends to be the hallmark of the 'video look' - it is an artificial sharpness that evaporates on a resolution chart.
You are right to say that not all 3 chip cameras are good, but single chips use overlays and have to use several pixels to register a colour that would take only 1 pixel with 3 chips - this is why megapixel camcorders (1,000,000 plus pixels) can have lower resolution than a 3 chip camcorder with 300,000 to 450,000 pixels on each chip, and the amount of pixels is an oft misunderstood indicator of resolution - Sony 2/3" chip DigiBeta cameras only have 470,000 pixels per chip - about the same as the PAL 1/3" chip DVX100, but their rez is significantly higher than the prosumer Panasonic.
The Canon XL1s I can assure you is sharp and yes you are right an improvement over the original XL1 - I shoot sometimes on a 2/3" chip Sony DSR570 DVCAM camcorder, and I have cut the anamorphic XL1s footage with the Sony footage, and in good light it was not far off, and that was in frame mode!
Frame mode has taken some bashing since the true prog scan of the DVX100 arrived on the scene, and whilst undoubtedly real prog scan is better (sensational in the DVX100 for a 1/3" chip camera), it does look as close to film mode in 25p as would suit most people (having said that progscan/frame never looks exactly like film - nice but it is not film), and as long as you shoot real 16:9 - not electronic - then resolution is very good.
I use Super 8 for titles and special FX at work and anything for a hobby - and nothing can beat the look of real film - never will!
Cheers.
nonkjo,
The film you have been talking about was made with the PAL version of the Cannon XL.
Which as you probably know has more lines of resolution than the US version. Second point as good as the Lica lens is on the Panasonic DVX-100, is I'm sure an excellent lens. "24 HOURS," was shot with top notch primes. costing at least $20, 000 and up.
Along with using film style lighting with a top notch crew and using state of the art post work...delevered a product much higher in quality than your garden variety 24 p DV.
The film you have been talking about was made with the PAL version of the Cannon XL.
Which as you probably know has more lines of resolution than the US version. Second point as good as the Lica lens is on the Panasonic DVX-100, is I'm sure an excellent lens. "24 HOURS," was shot with top notch primes. costing at least $20, 000 and up.
Along with using film style lighting with a top notch crew and using state of the art post work...delevered a product much higher in quality than your garden variety 24 p DV.
first, I'm not talking about "that film"...just commenting because someone else brought it up...Second, If you check the top of page 2 of this thread, you'll see that someone else already told mea that and my respons was, "I didn't know that." It's page 3...i know it now.The film you have been talking about was made with the PAL version of the Cannon XL.
We all are commenting on the film "28 Days"...."672 Hours" if you prefer..."24 HOURS," was shot with top notch primes. costing at least $20, 000 and up..."
Garden variety 24p DV? Is there another variety that i don't know about?!delevered a product much higher in quality than your garden variety 24 p DV.
When i made the comments about what they would have shot on, I said if the DVX100 had been around, i'm sure it would have been considered because of it's 24p capabilities...i did say that was just my speculation also...
I know it's an excellent lens...it and the camera were good enough to shoot a series for FX on...I was there. That's just one, I'm sure there's others.Second point as good as the Lica lens is on the Panasonic DVX-100, is I'm sure an excellent lens.
That's a very bold statement. I've used the original XL1 too and i know how hard it was to focus the bastard...it was just too fine which made it difficult...but the camera was by no means a dog either.Would I use an original XL1 for a production of my own? Not even if it was free.
Check out this film:
http://www.crewoftwo.com/movie/index.html
Yeah there was a lot of compositing and FX and the live actions was done with a blue screen but it was filmed with the original XL1 (a gl1 was used as the run and gun cam) and it looks pretty damn good to me. If you're giving one away, email me..I'll take one for free..
James Green
wow - this is some post!
I have read enough articles on "28 days" to last me .. . until 2004 :lol: & even spoken with a crew member of the film.
He says they used the XL1 (pal) not the "s" & although they had the 35 mm lenses etc for certain scenes - quite alot of the shots where done with the standard.
I have seen this film - I think its amazing to think - you can pick this good lookin' cam up for about $1400 or £850 pounds on ebay. I beg to differ about the statement about why there are so many xl1 cams on there - take another look & you will see just as much dvx100's.
I find it hard to beleive that "movie stuff" would'nt take one for free - surely thats a bit harsh for this cam even though its dv.
Regardless - I know now that the dvx has much more edge than the xl1 - just from so many posters who used to be xl1 owner's.
But as s8 's are nice & cheap - these dv's are not - I might have to go for an xl1s or xl1 because my small budget.
Film is art & video is buisness & I need to get some work in this town
:twisted:
hey dont take my words to seriously - im just looking to buy a new cam - thats all
I have read enough articles on "28 days" to last me .. . until 2004 :lol: & even spoken with a crew member of the film.
He says they used the XL1 (pal) not the "s" & although they had the 35 mm lenses etc for certain scenes - quite alot of the shots where done with the standard.
I have seen this film - I think its amazing to think - you can pick this good lookin' cam up for about $1400 or £850 pounds on ebay. I beg to differ about the statement about why there are so many xl1 cams on there - take another look & you will see just as much dvx100's.
I find it hard to beleive that "movie stuff" would'nt take one for free - surely thats a bit harsh for this cam even though its dv.
Regardless - I know now that the dvx has much more edge than the xl1 - just from so many posters who used to be xl1 owner's.
But as s8 's are nice & cheap - these dv's are not - I might have to go for an xl1s or xl1 because my small budget.
Film is art & video is buisness & I need to get some work in this town
:twisted: hey dont take my words to seriously - im just looking to buy a new cam - thats all
Yes, but the number of used DVX100s is very low.Lex colby wrote:I beg to differ about the statement about why there are so many xl1 cams on there - take another look & you will see just as much dvx100's.
I've shot shorts of my own with both the XL1 and the DVX100, and seen both projected. I wouldn't take an XL1 if it were given to me either (well I would, but I'd sell it and never use it). I was very, very disapointed in it.Lex colby wrote:I find it hard to beleive that "movie stuff" would'nt take one for free - surely thats a bit harsh for this cam even though its dv.
Regardless - I know now that the dvx has much more edge than the xl1 - just from so many posters who used to be xl1 owner's.
The show that was shot with the DVX100, however, was gorgeous. I have a similar closeup frame (lighting wise) of the same actress on a 16mm (7277) short I did and the DVX100 short, and both are equally beautiful to me, and I am very picky about video. Of course, if projected on film, which it never will be, the 16mm would have blown it out of the water.
If anyone is interested in seeing these two stills side by side, I'd be happy to show them when I get home tonight, but it would be solely in the interest of showing them, not to show that 24p video looks like film, because it doesn't... it looks like 24p video, which I think can be very beautiful.
I think really that's the ticket. To view video as a unique & evolving electronic medium which has its own beauty, never to be confused with the true look & feel of film.
People are still very much trying to make film-style movies with video cameras, and their movies do little more than to point out how video falls painfully short. Who hasn't seen those somewhat laughable photographs from the turn-of-the-century which strive to look like paintings? -- buxom women posed in Greek robes next to potted urns, etc. Some very nice photos, to be sure, but the whole approach seems misguided. One keeps being brought-up-short by the impression that the models are just too *real*.
That having been said -- look at some of those contemorary PixelVision toy video camera movies. Blocky, ghosty, electronic -- beautiful!
I keep looking for an in-road to DV -- a way of thinking about how to make a movie using a digital camera which would result in something which could ONLY have been shot on DV. But I caught the filmmaking bug watching 2001: A Space Odyssey and Bladerunner, not Fear Factor and Tadpole.
Anyone seen that marvelous movie Avalon?
http://www.midnighteye.com/reviews/avalon.shtml
Most of that film is so hyper-processed and oddly toned, I'm sure it would make for an interesting digital movie. I also think that the comic artist Dave McKean's work would look good as an approach to a digital movie. As it happens, Dave McKean has made a digitial movie or two -- bringing his own cut & paste, saturated art style into the digital realm.
People are still very much trying to make film-style movies with video cameras, and their movies do little more than to point out how video falls painfully short. Who hasn't seen those somewhat laughable photographs from the turn-of-the-century which strive to look like paintings? -- buxom women posed in Greek robes next to potted urns, etc. Some very nice photos, to be sure, but the whole approach seems misguided. One keeps being brought-up-short by the impression that the models are just too *real*.
That having been said -- look at some of those contemorary PixelVision toy video camera movies. Blocky, ghosty, electronic -- beautiful!
I keep looking for an in-road to DV -- a way of thinking about how to make a movie using a digital camera which would result in something which could ONLY have been shot on DV. But I caught the filmmaking bug watching 2001: A Space Odyssey and Bladerunner, not Fear Factor and Tadpole.
Anyone seen that marvelous movie Avalon?
http://www.midnighteye.com/reviews/avalon.shtml
Most of that film is so hyper-processed and oddly toned, I'm sure it would make for an interesting digital movie. I also think that the comic artist Dave McKean's work would look good as an approach to a digital movie. As it happens, Dave McKean has made a digitial movie or two -- bringing his own cut & paste, saturated art style into the digital realm.